Cullison

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

In late 2006, Cullison refinanced her property in Martinez, and CMC has serviced her mortgage since then. In January 2013, she filed a complaint against CMC for fraud and promissory estoppel, alleging that CMC engaged in “predatory and fraudulent” lending practices. (Boldface omitted.) CMC moved for judgment on the pleadings, which Cullison opposed. After a contested hearing, the trial court ruled that Cullison’s

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1 complaint “fail[ed] to state a cause of action” and denied her leave to amend. Cullison did not seek relief from the judgment under section 473, subdivision (b) in the trial court before filing this appeal.

II.

DISCUSSION

Cullison requests that we vacate the trial court’s judgment under section 473, subdivision (b) because the judgment was a product of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” We decline to do so because Cullison (1) did not move for relief under this statute in the trial court; (2) fails to comply with the statute’s own procedural requirements; and (3) does not identify the nature of any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.…